Hysteria/fear of 'pedophiles'(the media definition of course) is a cult/religion that has taken on sectarian forms. Even some of the best critical thinkers are now prone to these beliefs.
Discourse on this is currently controlled by the voices of a few, not our own. We are living during a time of universal deceit. We are being lied to on an unimaginably massive scale, and many brave people are doing the right thing and talking out against this toxic ideology.
The level of hysterical behavior that comes out of just about anyone as soon as this topic is raised is disproportionate when compared to other issues.
When a person is charged with mass murder they are innocent until proven guilty.
When a person is SUSPECTED (not even charged) of having a digital picture on their computer (regardless of the outcome of the investigation) they are dragged out into the street and beaten to death by their neighbors (otherwise normal people). This is not a coincidence. This has given a whole industrial complex(medical, political, legal, prison, charities, academia) a free pass to profit off of this hysteria without repercussions, and many are afraid to question this. Please note the historical comparisons below.
Black men were stereotyped for being with white women because they believed black men only wanted to manipulate white women into intimate relationships. But now we know this works both ways around and is based on personality not race. Manipulative adults were once manipulative youths as well, and youths are also capable of manipulating older people such as how young con artists working for telemarketing companies have managed to so effectively bilk senior citizens out of their life savings.
Black men who were attracted to white women who protested this were accused of only wanting intimate relationships with white women with no interest in the broader issues of society.
Older people and men are viewed with more suspicion like black shoplifters are. This is why older people and men seem more manipulative than young people and women.
Blacks were also thought to be less intelligent than whites to the point of being unable to learn to read and write. Now society believes similar things about young people. But if we gave young people a chance to prove themselves, they too would prove society wrong.
The idea that young people's brain's are not developed until 25 is a pervasive belief, yet much science over the previous decade has effectively refuted that claim. Do a Google search for "Myth of the Teen Brain, Case Against Adolescence, and Teen 2.0 filetype: pdf"
False beliefs about the intelligence of homosexuals and women were once pervasive beliefs, as well, making it clear that what we consider the conventional wisdom of any given era is not always right.
The current moral panic in question has lasted for about 35 years now. As a cursory examination of moral panics in the past will show, 35 years is not an extremely long period of time for such a hysteria to last from a historical perspective. The available evidence makes it clear that the hysteria has just about peaked, if not peaked already, and is now a bit past its heyday. And listen carefully: this is from the horse's mouth. *NOTHING about this moral panic suggests it will do any better than the many previous variations in cheating history and lasting forever. I would bet a billion dollars on this statement if I had it.*
One political writer and brave youth liberationist speaking out named Dissident has literally written over 10 million words(yes I counted!) proving why this is no conspiracy. A compilation of most of his essays and answers to common questions he has been asked are at: justpaste . it/1v If the link is down find an archive of the link at archive . org or another archive site, or search for a combination of any of two or more words on the final paragraph of this on Quora and expand the first few comments you see for new links.
1. All of his thoughts are at: annabelleigh . net/index.php?page=20
Change the number after page= and revisit the link for more.
2. Hold CTRL+f. When the search box comes up type in "dissident" or simply look for posts by Dissident, and click on his posts.
In particular see Dissident's essays "The Importance of Truth", "The Truth Behind The Age of Consent Laws", and his comments about The Rind Report. There is no need to read everything in one setting, and a lot can be gained by even reading a few paragraphs.
The Rind Report is a fully peer-reviewed scientific meta-analysis conducted by three mental health professionals(MHPs) who are not associated with youth liberation, which noted that children six and up are capable of "simple consenting" to relationships with adults.
The entire U.S. Congress voted unanimously to condemn the report even after it was published in 1998, despite the fact that it used perfectly credible methodology to exact its results, has never been successfully refuted anywhere else by any objective study, and the report's conclusions were fully replicated in a duplicate study by an entirely different group of MHPs, led by Heather M. Ulrich, as reported in an essay appearing in the Fall/Winter 2005-06 issue of The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice.
This made it quite clear that truth is far less important to the government than preserving custom and the belief systems that rationalize the defense and retention of the present status quo. The fact that this status quo, and the laws and cultural mores designed to preserve it, may be based on a series of lies isn’t important as long as these fallacies best enable the powers-that-be to maintain the present gerontocentric cultural hierarchy, civil rights be damned.
If we have successfully tested and proven by rigorous studies more than once that younger and older people are not being harmed/abused by this is it really abuse or just abuse of a cherished societal paradigm? And why can’t the many detractors of this phenomenon call a spade a spade and be honest about this?
If Rind can go so far as to quote an APA study that made it very clear that the mental health(MH) industry has great evidence to suggest that at least adolescents, including younger adolescents, are fully capable of giving informed consent to many things and clearly have intellectual and reasoning faculties on par with those who are adults, and if Rind's own findings suggest that pre-pubescents are at least capable of what he calls 'simple consent,' and that this basic form of consent also means that children who participate in activities that they consider enjoyable, pleasurable, and mutually desired are highly unlikely to suffer any psychological damage out of the blue, what exactly justifies Dr. Rind or most anyone else in the MH profession to continue supporting the current moral attitudes towards the concept of youth rights in general?
"Dr. Rind is supposed to be a man of science, as are others in the MH profession, and their job is to seek empirically demonstrable truths on a rational basis, and this objectivity and devotion to scientific truth is enormously compromised when they attempt to pander to the customs and attitudes of the current status quo when the latter two things conflict with scientific validity and are based entirely on moralism-derived precepts rather than protecting them from actual harm that is demonstrably observable.
And there is also the very serious issue of civil rights here, not simply those of older people, but also those of younger people, and the extremely important question of whether or not it's in any way justifiable to deny any group of people their civil rights simply because having those rights might result in those people engaging in some activities that, while causing no one any demonstrable harm, would offend the general public, would conflict with preservation of the nuclear family unit. This despite the fact that it's well known that the NFU is where the great majority of real abuse towards young people actually occurs."
Considering the evidence and the popularity of barely legal porn(which would likely not be any less popular if the legal age was lower from the start) there's a very high chance that many older people affected by this could be people you know, your son and even you.
Hundreds of millions of parents in the US alone have a son whose attraction, their core fundamental and immutable design, is not only criminalized, but is openly hated at about the same level as Jews in Nazi Germany. Men who solely mesh and click well socially with younger people are being forced to to lie to older women to placate societal expectations. They are truly committing unethical acts against these older women because they are fully away from the get-go that they cannot give these women genuine romantic relationships. These men who have the full gamut of aesthetic attraction aspects to younger women are well aware beyond any doubt that such aspects do exist and that such feelings are entirely apt and legitimate.
These attractions, their aspects, and prevalence's have been documented and proven in studies on chronophilia's such as pedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia/teleiophilia with prevalence rates of 3-5%,16-20%, and 75-86% such as: Schuster, Filip, (2014) Every fifth boy and man is pedophilic or hebephilic; a combination of studies and Seto MC (2017). "Puzzle of Male Chronophilia's".
Discourse on this is currently controlled by the voices of a few, not our own. We are living during a time of universal deceit. We are being lied to on an unimaginably massive scale, and many brave people are doing the right thing and talking out against this toxic ideology.
The level of hysterical behavior that comes out of just about anyone as soon as this topic is raised is disproportionate when compared to other issues.
When a person is charged with mass murder they are innocent until proven guilty.
When a person is SUSPECTED (not even charged) of having a digital picture on their computer (regardless of the outcome of the investigation) they are dragged out into the street and beaten to death by their neighbors (otherwise normal people). This is not a coincidence. This has given a whole industrial complex(medical, political, legal, prison, charities, academia) a free pass to profit off of this hysteria without repercussions, and many are afraid to question this. Please note the historical comparisons below.
Black men were stereotyped for being with white women because they believed black men only wanted to manipulate white women into intimate relationships. But now we know this works both ways around and is based on personality not race. Manipulative adults were once manipulative youths as well, and youths are also capable of manipulating older people such as how young con artists working for telemarketing companies have managed to so effectively bilk senior citizens out of their life savings.
Black men who were attracted to white women who protested this were accused of only wanting intimate relationships with white women with no interest in the broader issues of society.
Older people and men are viewed with more suspicion like black shoplifters are. This is why older people and men seem more manipulative than young people and women.
Blacks were also thought to be less intelligent than whites to the point of being unable to learn to read and write. Now society believes similar things about young people. But if we gave young people a chance to prove themselves, they too would prove society wrong.
The idea that young people's brain's are not developed until 25 is a pervasive belief, yet much science over the previous decade has effectively refuted that claim. Do a Google search for "Myth of the Teen Brain, Case Against Adolescence, and Teen 2.0 filetype: pdf"
False beliefs about the intelligence of homosexuals and women were once pervasive beliefs, as well, making it clear that what we consider the conventional wisdom of any given era is not always right.
The current moral panic in question has lasted for about 35 years now. As a cursory examination of moral panics in the past will show, 35 years is not an extremely long period of time for such a hysteria to last from a historical perspective. The available evidence makes it clear that the hysteria has just about peaked, if not peaked already, and is now a bit past its heyday. And listen carefully: this is from the horse's mouth. *NOTHING about this moral panic suggests it will do any better than the many previous variations in cheating history and lasting forever. I would bet a billion dollars on this statement if I had it.*
One political writer and brave youth liberationist speaking out named Dissident has literally written over 10 million words(yes I counted!) proving why this is no conspiracy. A compilation of most of his essays and answers to common questions he has been asked are at: justpaste . it/1v If the link is down find an archive of the link at archive . org or another archive site, or search for a combination of any of two or more words on the final paragraph of this on Quora and expand the first few comments you see for new links.
1. All of his thoughts are at: annabelleigh . net/index.php?page=20
Change the number after page= and revisit the link for more.
2. Hold CTRL+f. When the search box comes up type in "dissident" or simply look for posts by Dissident, and click on his posts.
In particular see Dissident's essays "The Importance of Truth", "The Truth Behind The Age of Consent Laws", and his comments about The Rind Report. There is no need to read everything in one setting, and a lot can be gained by even reading a few paragraphs.
The Rind Report is a fully peer-reviewed scientific meta-analysis conducted by three mental health professionals(MHPs) who are not associated with youth liberation, which noted that children six and up are capable of "simple consenting" to relationships with adults.
The entire U.S. Congress voted unanimously to condemn the report even after it was published in 1998, despite the fact that it used perfectly credible methodology to exact its results, has never been successfully refuted anywhere else by any objective study, and the report's conclusions were fully replicated in a duplicate study by an entirely different group of MHPs, led by Heather M. Ulrich, as reported in an essay appearing in the Fall/Winter 2005-06 issue of The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice.
This made it quite clear that truth is far less important to the government than preserving custom and the belief systems that rationalize the defense and retention of the present status quo. The fact that this status quo, and the laws and cultural mores designed to preserve it, may be based on a series of lies isn’t important as long as these fallacies best enable the powers-that-be to maintain the present gerontocentric cultural hierarchy, civil rights be damned.
If we have successfully tested and proven by rigorous studies more than once that younger and older people are not being harmed/abused by this is it really abuse or just abuse of a cherished societal paradigm? And why can’t the many detractors of this phenomenon call a spade a spade and be honest about this?
If Rind can go so far as to quote an APA study that made it very clear that the mental health(MH) industry has great evidence to suggest that at least adolescents, including younger adolescents, are fully capable of giving informed consent to many things and clearly have intellectual and reasoning faculties on par with those who are adults, and if Rind's own findings suggest that pre-pubescents are at least capable of what he calls 'simple consent,' and that this basic form of consent also means that children who participate in activities that they consider enjoyable, pleasurable, and mutually desired are highly unlikely to suffer any psychological damage out of the blue, what exactly justifies Dr. Rind or most anyone else in the MH profession to continue supporting the current moral attitudes towards the concept of youth rights in general?
"Dr. Rind is supposed to be a man of science, as are others in the MH profession, and their job is to seek empirically demonstrable truths on a rational basis, and this objectivity and devotion to scientific truth is enormously compromised when they attempt to pander to the customs and attitudes of the current status quo when the latter two things conflict with scientific validity and are based entirely on moralism-derived precepts rather than protecting them from actual harm that is demonstrably observable.
And there is also the very serious issue of civil rights here, not simply those of older people, but also those of younger people, and the extremely important question of whether or not it's in any way justifiable to deny any group of people their civil rights simply because having those rights might result in those people engaging in some activities that, while causing no one any demonstrable harm, would offend the general public, would conflict with preservation of the nuclear family unit. This despite the fact that it's well known that the NFU is where the great majority of real abuse towards young people actually occurs."
Considering the evidence and the popularity of barely legal porn(which would likely not be any less popular if the legal age was lower from the start) there's a very high chance that many older people affected by this could be people you know, your son and even you.
Hundreds of millions of parents in the US alone have a son whose attraction, their core fundamental and immutable design, is not only criminalized, but is openly hated at about the same level as Jews in Nazi Germany. Men who solely mesh and click well socially with younger people are being forced to to lie to older women to placate societal expectations. They are truly committing unethical acts against these older women because they are fully away from the get-go that they cannot give these women genuine romantic relationships. These men who have the full gamut of aesthetic attraction aspects to younger women are well aware beyond any doubt that such aspects do exist and that such feelings are entirely apt and legitimate.
These attractions, their aspects, and prevalence's have been documented and proven in studies on chronophilia's such as pedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia/teleiophilia with prevalence rates of 3-5%,16-20%, and 75-86% such as: Schuster, Filip, (2014) Every fifth boy and man is pedophilic or hebephilic; a combination of studies and Seto MC (2017). "Puzzle of Male Chronophilia's".
